Chibuzor v. Corwin

Background

Anthony O. Chibuzor, proceeding without a lawyer and having paid the filing fee, sued Dr. Steven Corwin, Curtis Kellner, and Dr. Diana Hu. He alleged discrimination based on sex under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the New York State Human Rights Law.

Chibuzor described himself as a former pharmacy technician at New York Presbyterian Hospital. He alleged that on August 17, 2019, while he was compounding medication, pharmacist Diana Hu rushed into him and punched, poked, or hit the left side of his stomach. He said Hu then took a medication bin away from the hood after telling him she wanted someone else to compound the medication. Security officers later sent him home. He alleged that he was suspended on August 22, 2019, and fired by pharmacy director Curtis Kellner on September 4, 2019. He also alleged that the incident may have resulted from a disagreement about medication labels. He filed a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which issued a notice of right to sue on August 13, 2020; he received it on August 20, 2020.

Court’s analysis

The court explained that it may dismiss a complaint as frivolous or for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction even when the filing fee has been paid. It also said that courts must read complaints filed by people without lawyers liberally and interpret them to raise the strongest claims suggested by the allegations.

Title VII defendants

The court held that individuals cannot be held personally liable under Title VII. The proper defendant for a Title VII claim is the plaintiff’s employer. Because Chibuzor named only individuals, the court dismissed his Title VII claims for failure to state a claim. The court instructed him that any repleaded Title VII claims must name his former employer as a defendant. The court noted that individuals who participate in discrimination may be personally liable under the New York State Human Rights Law.

Sex-discrimination allegations

The court also held that Chibuzor did not allege facts plausibly suggesting that his sex motivated the decision to terminate him. The complaint alleged that a female employee was involved in the workplace incident, but it did not allege facts showing that Chibuzor’s sex affected the incident, his suspension, or his termination. The court stated that an incident or disagreement between employees of different sexes, by itself, does not suggest sex discrimination. It also noted that the complaint identified Curtis Kellner, another male, as the person who decided to terminate Chibuzor’s employment. The court therefore dismissed the Title VII claims for failure to state a claim.

State-law claims

After dismissing the federal claims, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, meaning authority over related state-law claims, as to any claims Chibuzor was asserting under the New York State Human Rights Law.

Leave to amend and disposition

The court granted Chibuzor leave to file a second amended complaint within sixty days. It directed him to include the facts and claims he wished to pursue in that filing because the second amended complaint would replace, rather than supplement, the existing amended complaint. The court also directed him to identify the relevant defendants, their addresses, the events and dates involved, how each defendant violated his rights, his injuries, and the relief he sought.

The court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim, granted leave to replead within sixty days, and stated that the Clerk could enter judgment and close the action if Chibuzor did not timely file a second amended complaint without showing good cause. The court certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without prepaying fees.